feliciakw | Anna is wrong about angels

Current Mood: studious

Entry tags:

Anna is wrong about angels

I make this post mostly for myself, to highlight details of Show that I have gut feelings about, but can't point immediately to why I have those gut feelings.

In "Heaven and Hell," Anna says that only four angels have ever seen God. This is one of the points that set my teeth on edge, but it was more of an instinct thing (throne room full of angels, how could only four have actually seen God?).

Well, today during my Bible study (which deals with something entirely different), I read a verse that made me say to myself, "Ha. Anna is wrong. Here's what Scripture actually says."

Matthew 18:10 . . . "See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven."

I'm not going to get into the idea of personal guardian angels, for which I don't think there's any actual Biblical support. But the above referenced verse indicates that angels do watch over children, and said angels do have constant access to God.

Now, I know Show is taking (huge) liberties with Scripture (like the Revelation(s) reference in last week's episode). But angels are a topic I apparently don't know enough about to be able to sort through the literary license on more than gut instinct. I'm trying to remedy that.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I have yet to read or watch any work of fiction that got angels right. Or at least, I can't remember any.

After last night's episode, I really have to get to learn about Biblical angels, or I'm going to be really confused.

(deleted comment)

How is that 'trouble'? Have you read any Neil Gaiman? Re-inventing for one's own mythology is not a bad thing, generally speaking--it shows imagination and a willingness to create something new.

Which isn't to say that I don't wish Show would be a little better about angels-and-God; I definitely preferred the open door to faith we had in "Faith" and "Houses of the Holy" to what we may be getting now.

Just a comment from a writer who's read a lot of fantasy.

Actually, (and I know I spoiled myself sorta, but I couldn't resist), in Jewish angelology -- the only kind I know -- there is a school of thought that says that four angels make up the "Angels of the Face", i.e. those angels are the ones who have seen the TRUE face of G-d, whereas other angels have only seen glimpses or don't get as up close and personal.

If you want more specifics, less IIRC, I have to get some caffeine in me.

Ah. Well, that at least tells me where they might have gotten the four angels thing from. Given that Sera Gamble is Jewish, that makes sense. Thanks.

But it still annoys me the way they present it. (I won't even get into my peeve about Anna being a fallen angel.)

And given that I don't know much about any sort of angelology--Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or any other--I don't know what they're deriving from outside sources, and what they're pulling out of Scripture and tinkering with (what they're doing with the seals and the Witnesses being two big Scriptural "bzuh?" moments).

No spoilers, thank you, but if this topic comes up again (it probably will), your information will no doubt at least help me figure out what they're using as "source material."

(Remember, I haven't seen anything since 4.08 or .09 so I've no idea where the SPN cosmology is going. I've been spoiled about Anna a bit though.)

Sera's Jewish but not observant (as we say). She sounds more secular/humanist (kinda like me). So I don't know how much is from authoritative sources and how much is due to the research people or interesting talks in the LA Jewish community (they've always been a strange lot, G-d bless 'em).

If they're talking about four angels and faces (cue mystical music), it sounds very Old Testament and the mysticism that came out of that -- think visions of flying chariots. Which is cool, specially from my view point. You "need" to ask yourself if they are tinkering with canonic scripture (and whose canon), apocrypha, or inventing their own texts, as the BuffyVerse did.

(PS -- the four will probably be Michael, Raphael, Uriel and Gabriel.)

Oh, I can totally get behind fiery chariots and Ezekiel saw the wheel and such. I'm not as familiar as I should be with the OT, but I know way more about it than I do the Apocrypha (me not being Catholic and all). In fact, I've no doubt that the Billy Graham book that I've got waiting for me to read will discuss a lot of that.

As far as "authoritative sources," thus far they've been kind of picking and choosing. "So, what's in Revelation(s) that we can use? Oh! Witnesses sounds good. Let's do something with that." Or "Seals? Yeah, let's use the seals. But there are only seven. Well, let's make it sixty-six. Ooooohhh . . . yeah. We can do that." No doubt are they inventing their own texts. They're getting really . . . um . . . creative with Revelation(s), to the point of quoting things from "obscure and arcane versions" thereof, meaning: it ain't in the real thing.

That's kind of why I need to study up: to be able to sort their artistic license from the Bible actually says.

I'll refrain from saying anything more, because I don't want to spoil you. We might revisit the topic later. (Apologies if I mentioned anything that you hadn't previously been spoiled for.)

I'm going to stir the pot and say: it may not be Christian mythology that's running this apocalypse but a mixture of world mythologies, with the Judeo-Christian being the foundational "text". That, and thankfully, a LOT of artistic license. Without that artistic license I can safely say I'd not be watching.

The reason I mentioned the chariot of Ezekiel is because its interpretation gave rise to the early Jewish mystical movement-- merkaba mysticism, the proto-Kabbala. They're the ones with "faces" and "angels" and "stuff".

Witnesses are common in J-C apocalyptic literature, even in the Dead Sea Scrolls -- which might be an interesting read for SPN, since they discuss the war beween the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness. So that they play a role in Revelations and Supernatural is good.

I think 66 is a cool number -- at least they didn't go with 69. That would set fandom alight.

Are you saying there's a different Apocrypha for Catholics than for Protestants? (I don't know from Christian "stuff", I use the Jewish texts. They're racy. ;) )

Sigh -- we might have to go ahead with the spoiling. No word on when SPN returns to Australian TV, even though Jensen, Jared and Misha are coming to Sydney in a month.

Actually, Protestants don't recognize the Apocrypha as Scripture; it's only included in the Catholic Bible--and maybe the Orthodox Bible. (If there are Protestant denominations that recognize the Apocrypha, I don't know about it.) The first time I ever heard of the Book of Tobit it was included in a Catholic wedding and I was all o.O .

Otoh, the bat mitzvah I went to several years ago, they used readings from Psalms, and I had no problem keeping up with those. :-)

I know that there is a lot of artistic license going into Show, and for the most part, I don't mind. But that's because up until now I've been able to sort of figure out where they're getting things from and how they're changing them. But things like the four angels? Made absolutely no sense to me; it seemed very random and arbitrary. But now that I know where they might have gotten it from, it makes more sense.

Tonight's ep had stuff that it's going to take me a while to figure out exactly how I feel about it.

Re: the con . . . *raises eyebrows* . . . well, considering that they have to censor themselves with eps that haven't aired here in the States and still occasionally spoil, I can only imagine how hard it would be for them to not talk about eps that aired months ago here. So, yeah, I guess spoilers are kind of going to be inevitable.

I think we're at cross terms here. Apocrypha means it's not part of the canonic Bible, Catholic or otherwise. IIUC, it's only in post-KJV versions references to the texts weren't included in the Bible. However, I was taught about the Apocrypha at Brigham Young U (funnily enough, in Israel). Apparently it's all Luther's fault. ;)

BTW, you should read them: they're inspirational. In particular, Susanna, Judith (both show strong women), Maccabees (war and revolution) and Tobit (for demonology). Not sure where Enoch fits into this schema, but it has information on Azazel and his cohort, Watchers and the Fallen and how we're all going to die in the apocalypse (yay). Just stay away from the "Pseudepigrapha". No one recognizes them, AFAIK.

And that's probably more than you wanted to know, huh? Sorry.

Re: The con. I don't care, not going (not at $150 for a freaking day ticket -- entry only) and certainly not if I have to plug my ears because they can't and shouldn't have to censor themselves. I know that sounds like a spoiled rant, but it's ridiculous to bring them all the way here for one weekend in a small university venue in one city (15 hour flight from LA) and then ask people to fork out a week's worth of groceries to squee.

*I just want to see the rest of the show. Pouty face*

Well, but the Apocrypha is included in the Catholic Bible. That's how I can tell if a Bible is Catholic or not. I had never even heard of the Apocrypha or learned what it was until I was a teenager. (Was never required to learn the Apostle's Creed or the Nicean Creed, either.) If it's not canon for Catholics, either, why include it? (Also, I was a little surprised when I discovered that the New International Version--which is what I use--does have an Apocryphal edition. I just never thought a Catholic congregation would use anything more recent than the KJV translation.)

If Martin Luther is the one who removed the Apocrypha, and it's not looked on by Catholics as canonical anyway, it makes sense that he would do that, since he was trying to get back to basics, so to speak. (My question would be how did it get into the Catholic Bible in the first place?) Though the explanation I've received of why we don't have the Apocrypha in our Bible didn't include mention of Luther.

(Btw, this is just me sort of musing aloud. Don't feel you need to provide answers if you're not so inclined. :-) )

I am a wee bit familiar with Maccabees, as that is where (it's my understanding) that the story of Hanukkah comes from.

The price of cons is extremely cost-prohibitive for me, and my most recent experience with cons (which was about five or six years ago) was . . . uncomfortable. I'd still like to see the Boys in person though. Alas.

I was wondering if different "Catholic" used different Bibles, or if I was really old until I found this link: Books of the Bible. It's very helpful, 'cuz as any of my friends from BVS days will tell you, I'm Christianly challenged.

The Apocryhpa was (IIRC) put back by the Council of Trent: Reformation/Counter-reformation, and all that committee decision making.

Yes, Maccabees gives the world an excuse for Hanukkah: chocolate candy, filled doughnuts. All good. ;)

I've never been to a con (except a Pokemon one when my kids were wee little). Went to an academic conference in Melbourne that turned into a con, but that's it. I'd rather meet them (anyone) over coffee or Guinness. Smelly, screaming fans give me indigestion. ;)

I'd rather meet them (anyone) over coffee or Guinness.

Word. I'm am totally with you on that one.

Love the icon!

And we totally should do that in a fan-neutral place. Which would be ... Shaker Heights? St. Clairesville -- great cafeteria there? Just not the northwest corner. I have nightmares about working national parks between Maumee and Defiance (even worse 'cuz there's a town with my family name nearby). OOOhh -- Sandusky...

I don't know i always thought that Kripke's reality isn't our reality so to look for answers in our book isn't right way (if you can say that). He writes stuff for the reason of his plot twists and seeing where he goes with it now i'd say in the end he finally will write good guys as they deserve it. I'm not so sure about Sammy because he tends to whitewash him but i don't really care about him anyway so...

I think my point is getting lost here. I know Kripke is making things up as he goes and doesn't really care (probably doesn't even know) how it compares to Scripture. My purpose is for me to learn more about the way things really are so I can tell when he's off the mark.

This has nothing to do with his storytelling. It has to do with my being able to discern fact from fiction. Kripke will do what he wants in the story regarding angels, but that doesn't make him "right" in comparison to the reality. You know what I mean?

I'm sorry if this sounds rushed, but we're getting ready to go out to breakfast, and I hear the door opening and people leaving right now.

I'll try to get my review of Show up this evening or tomorrow (Sunday).

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Anna is wrong about angels

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

I'm probably far off the mark -- not enough caffeine

Re: I'm probably far off the mark -- not enough caffeine

Re: I'm probably far off the mark -- not enough caffeine

Re: I'm probably far off the mark -- not enough caffeine

They should have a trivial pursuit on this

Re: They should have a trivial pursuit on this

Re: They should have a trivial pursuit on this

Re: They should have a trivial pursuit on this

Re: They should have a trivial pursuit on this

no subject

no subject